Skip to comments.I Donít![Canada-'automatically married by the state, against their will']
Posted on 05/29/2012 7:43:21 AM PDT by Theoria
How a bizarre legal case involving a mysterious billionaire could force 1.2 million Canadians to be married, against their will.
Somewhere in North America, there is a place where little girls dont give the slightest thought to what kind of wedding dress theyll wear one day. A place where young men have never heard the expression: why buy the cow when you can have the milk for free?because the milk is always free. A place where no one asks an unmarried couple expecting a baby if theyre getting hitched.
This place is the province of Quebec. The French language spoken here is no guarantee for romance. Couples are practical, and lovers treasure their individuality. Quebec has become one of the least marrying places in the world, thanks to the institution known as de facto spouses, But now, thanks to a bizarre legal case entangling a Quebec billionaire and his de facto spouse , the freedom to un-marry is under threat. More than 1 million Quebecois in this kind of relationship may soon be automatically married by the state, against their will.
De facto spouses are defined by Quebecs law as two people who have been living together for a year or more without being married and who check the couple box on their income tax statement form. Quebecs lawmakers have deliberately chosen not to give de facto couples the same rights and responsibilities that married couples have under the Law of Quebec, to preserve the freedom of choice.
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
We already have “common law” wife in the US.
Doesn’t the U.S. have “common law marriage” that is similar? By common law... I thought if a couple lived together for a period of time, they were seen as “married” in the eyes of the State.
“When you choose to go down the rabbit hole, ya never know where it will lead.”
True, but you know what will be all over the floor.
Sorry, CL! I asked the question and we must have posted a second or two apart.
Some states do. But, ya know that in advance, not after.
I saw it as a “great minds think alike” sort of thing. ;-)
Not in Connecticut, I don’t know about other states.
Not in Delaware either - although now they do perform same sex “civil unions.”
Looks like some states and not others.
Not in every state.
—Not in every state.—
Well, to be fair, my comment was like saying “it is legal to purchase alcohol in the US”, even thought I, personally, live in a dry county.
“common law marriage” was outlawed by statute in virtually every (if not every) US jurisdiction in the early to mid 20th century. The theory was that CLM created more problems than it solved. In particular, problems of bigamy, divorce, inheritance, probate, custody of children, rape (remember that in some jurisdictions it was, until recently, legally impossible for a husband to rape his wife), and evidence (marital privilege in some places permits spouses to exclude each other’s testimony). Where the state has an efficient licensing system, the theory goes, we don’t need to spend a lot of effort to determine whether people are married or not.
My non-lawyer’s understanding of common law marriage in TX:
It exists precisely to protect the woman, and any children, from the Eric/Lola scenario. If a couple cohabits, and holds themselves out to the public to be married, then they are married in the sight of the law.
I think the “holds themselves out to the public” standard is higher than the average “shacked up briefly and a child resulted”.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: “Defacto married” women were not eligible for alimony. A Canadian court has decreed that your unmarried “defacto” wife may be awarded alimony.
Thank you for clearing that up.
They can't have it both ways. They must either choose to be a couple or not to be a couple.
Only in states that have not changed the common law we inherited from England at the time of Independence.
Actually, common law marriage was a wise institution that legally recognized the fact that marriage is neither a state nor a religious institution, but a natural institution in human society, that stable cohabitation by a man and a woman was the key feature of that institution and that the state (or Crown) had an interest in keeping such relationships stable (mostly for the sake of any children engendered). It is precisely the arrogation to the state of the purported authority to redefine non-state social institutions that is the most odious feature of the drive for "same-sex marriage". It's actually to see Quebec catching up with the Anglosphere in creating an analogue of common law marriage.
Does not sound too different at all from the Common Law Marriage we have here in Pennsylvania and in many of the other 13 original colonies.
Common law marriage is recognized in Colorado. It is often adjudicated “after the fact” when one of the couple wants a divorce or child custody or some other dispute occurs. The key is they held themselves out in public as a married couple.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.